This
newsletter is unashamedly devoted to truth, genius and wisdom,
which, of course, makes it totally anachronistic and out-of-fashion. Some
people even go so far as to call it "medieval" in
nature. The truths that it points to are subtle,
profound and hard to discern. They aren't the sort of
truths that you can hold out in front of everyone, as you can a
scientific result or a mathematical proof. Rather,
they are like beautiful diamonds that are buried deep within the
mind. Much personal digging is required if you want to
cash in on this wonderful treasure. But sadly, most
people are too afraid to dig, lest their whole minds cave in. And
so this newsletter is really only for the courageous few. Let
the morons endlessly prattle on about how these inner diamonds
don't exist. It is their loss, not yours. Let
them revel in their poverty. What does it matter to
you? You are a fine young explorer of the spirit! May
you go all the way with your explorations. May you
succeed where others fear to tread!

Anna: I have seen in a few places the forum hosts have stated
A=A is the foundation of logic, and some convoluted arguments
about that, but no further development of the idea. I can't
figure out where it ties together with your philosophy.

Dan Rowden: Well, let me try and give a hopefully succinct account
of how these ideas (including A=A as the basis of existence
itself) tie together:

- - - - -

A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where
"to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance
to an observer":

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it
is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it
to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this
relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the
thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that
is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the
basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all -
present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from
other things).

- - - - -

All things are caused, or, A=A as the basis of causality where
"cause" is defined as "that which is necessary for
something to exist":

Under this definition of "cause" it becomes immediately
apparent that all things are caused - since any given thing
requires what it is not for its existence ( its "being"
is necessitated by relation to other things): those other things
are necessary to its existence and are therefore causal to it.
Any thing is caused by "not that thing". In many
respects this is a re-stating of the above and conveys the same
essential meaning. In Buddhism this is known as co-dependent
origination - that things gives rise to each other due to the
necessity of their relation.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of logic:

This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of
consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things,
differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that. Without
the relation between "thing" and "not-thing"
there can be no things to be aware of, no content, no existence
and therefore no consciousness. Since A=A symbolises the basis of
consciousness it must necessarily also be the basis of all forms
of thought and logic is a form of thought; it is a movement of
mind necessarily containing differentiated content (i.e. "things").
A=A is foundational to this and therefore the basis of logic.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation
to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent
existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This
applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an
inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing
force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our
emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality.
Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

Anna: Well, well! Thank you for your detailed response. I
find no fault with it. Right after I sent that post (below) I
decided I had figured it out after all, and it has had a profound
effect on my mind the past couple of days. Yet what I came up
with is quite different! I wonder if it makes sense, or if I can
state it. I was thinking rather concretely. You had asked, Why is
a thing what it is, and why is A=A the basis for existence? So I
thought, if A does not equal A, what is it? If you say it is B,
that leaves you with B=B, which amounts to the same thing. But if
A is not itself, it is nothing. I do not see how things can exist
if a thing is not itself. If this item is not this item, it is
not any item, because as soon as you say, no, it is not A, you
must say what then it is. But as soon as you say what it is, it
is then THAT thing. That brings you right back again to the
stability of A=A. Unless every time you say it is THAT thing, it
again is not THAT thing but something else yet again. This would
go on forever, and nothing could exist.

Like so many things in a society
driven by the herd mentality, "sanity" is something
generally defined within the parameters of statistical norms,
social conventions. This leaves us with an essential criterion
for sanity which will look something like: perceptions of Reality
that fall within the parameters of conventional, statistical
norms.

This may have some socially pragmatic value, but what does it
mean for the thinker? Not much, frankly, as it doesn't speak to
the issue of whether these statistical norms actually have any
relationship whatever to Reality as it truly is. A person could
be judged sane, even if he was in fact a complete looney, simply
because his perceptions fit within certain social norms. But how
ridiculous is that? It's like saying a person can be sane and mad
at the same time. Such a view of the notion of sanity has no use
for the thinker at all. He requires something more concrete, more
objective, more absolute. Therefore, the thinker's criterion for
sanity demands direct relation to Reality, and will look
something like: Sanity = the mind attuned to the true nature of
Reality. Any person is sane to the degree that his mind is
attuned to that true nature.

Of course, the herd will instantly reject such a criterion - such
a definition - given that if one accepts that hardly anyone is
enlightened, then this definition automatically means that almost
all people are far less than sane; all people are to varying
degrees, but most to a high degree, insane. This would be too
much for their fragile egos to cope with! And yet, what more
logical definition could there be? Why must we have two such
different and competing options for the meaning of sanity, one
which values what the true nature of Reality is, and one which
does not? Why not abandon the conventional idea of sanity
altogether, and instead speak of it as simple normality.
At least the term normality directly speaks to what is socially
normative. And why adopt a criterion for something as important
as sanity that does nothing but produce mediocrity? Sanity by
democracy and statistics! How insane! The worst part of this kind
of convention is that is does nothing to inspire development. If
one is statistically "normal", one has no need to
strive for better or sharper or more profound perspectives of
Reality. If one does so one runs the risk of stepping outside
what is cognitively normative; one runs the risk of being
perceived, then, as less than sane.

The thinker, if a true thinker he be, cannot afford to care about
such things, any more than he can afford to care about any herdly
perspectives. He must consider only that which is conducive to
the sublimation of his deep desire for understanding and wisdom.
He must consider only that which is true. Another common
modern criterion for sanity is that one has "good reason"
for one's beliefs or perspectives. The possession of so-called
"good reason", apparently, makes one sane. But once
again we're faced with conventional notions - in this instance of
what constitutes "good reason". Once again we're
working within the parameters of a standard that is regarded as
socially normative. But once again this standard does not speak
to what is actually true; it makes no pretense to any kind of
objective or absolute standard. What is regarded as socially
normative in terms of quality of reason might well be regarded as
idiocy in a more enlightened society.

This is surely unacceptable to any person who feels that the
concept of sanity must have a direct relationship to Reality as
it truly is. But here we are, living in a world which does not
care about Reality; one which cares only for what is socially
"normal", what is expressed by the greatest number. The
folly of this approach to sanity and reason is readily
demonstrated by simple virtue of the fact that it may be socially
normal to believe one thing in one nation and its opposite in
another.

Someone once remarked that all
religions are as true as each other. This can also be said of any
statistical, social norm. When we make a concept like sanity
socially relative, we destroy its meaning and worth altogether.

Anna: You say one can reason oneself into enlightenement.
What about meditation? Not necessary?

Dan Rowden: Meditation, with respect to the path of enlightenment,
is simply the process of stilling or calming the mind so that
reason can be focused on any given issue. It is ridding the mind
of extraneous concerns and influences so as to give reason free
reign. Other forms of meditation don't particularly interest me.

David
Quinn: In a deeper sense,
meditation simply means remembering God. It is the
dwelling in God-consciousness, no matter what one is doing -
sitting down, standing up, going shopping, writing, chatting to
people, lying down, whatever.

Anna: On the woman question, I am thinking continually, but
have not much to say as yet. I am still in a state of grief.
However, I think it is unfair to say that a woman (such as
perhaps myself) that displays interest in these things, or other
"masculine" attributes is not a real woman.

David Quinn: Well, you would be a real human being - isn't than
enough? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "real woman".

Anna: It is not my term! Yes, being considered human is
pretty much what feminism is about.

David Quinn: I was talking about being human, rather than
simply being considered human. I agree that feminists want women
to be considered human, but they're not really concerned with
what women should do to become human. By "human",
I mean someone who is open-minded, rational, consistent, has a
conscience, values enlightenment, unmanipulative, treats others
with respect, isn't a slave to fashion, etc. This is far removed
from where the average woman is now.

Anna: Now, as I am pondering all this, I am seeing more and
more the incredibly big divide between men and women. For
example, take the Islamic culture as the most extreme. You have
said, what is to prevent women from making their own religions
and organizing their own education, etc., etc.? I realize, you
are so right! If you had a lot of men penned up in harems, there
would be all sorts of organizations going on, secret teachings
uncovered, artwork, philosophy...Even insane men can perform
better than insane women. In the paranoid schizophrenic wards,
the women are all lost in their chaotic maelstrom and are
isolated, whereas the men with the same diagnosis are playing
cards and talking to each other. Having said that, I utterly
disagree with your above! Lots of women have a conscience, seek
the spiritual life, try to be honest, have the value of being
open-minded. Lots of women are pursuing enlightenment.

David Quinn: I wish I could agree with you. Generally speaking, what
women mean by "conscience" isn't the valuing of truth,
but rather the valuing of other people's happiness and that of
social harmony - or in rare cases, the pleasing of a personal God
. And what they mean by "enlightenment" isn't full
comprehension of Reality, but rather communing with a God. Women
are still trapped in the bonding/merging/harmonizing kind of
mentality which makes it especially difficult for them to engage
in the kind of deeper philosophic thought that can create fear
and suffering in others.

Anna: Well you are using the word conscience in a limited,
perhaps exalted sense.

David Quinn: Of course. From a spiritual perspective, what other
sense is there?

Anna: The general meaning is doing what is right, not doing
what is selfish, being honest.

David Quinn: As I say, as far as most women are concened, "doing
what is right" is creating harmony and minimizing conflict,
and "not doing what is selfish" is being concerned with
other people's happiness.

Anna: I do not think that is what women think about
conscience. Most people, men or women, if you asked them, would
say it is that which makes you feel guilty if you do something
wrong.

David Quinn: You're doing the typical womanly thing and defining
conscience in a way that (a) has no connection to Truth, and (b)
conveniently gives nearly every woman on earth a very large
conscience.

Anna: A conscience as commonly understood has a large
connection with truth, but certainly contains many other ethics
as well. If you want to define it for me, I will stick to your
definition. (But then, in the end, truth and ethics would
coincide). Is it possible that women could have a small, general
tendency to be a little more kind or have a slightly more
sensitive ethic about one or two things while men are more
ethical on about 50 others? Besides, it does not give it to every
woman. Sadly, pure spiteful meaness motivated by envy and
covetousness is a minor but definite trait of the female, of the
lower sort.

David Quinn: "Women have no sympathy . . . And my experience of
women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too.
Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you
for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any in
return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so."
- Florence Nightingale

Anna: Actually, some women enjoy stirring up conflict and
creating disharmony. I would not praise them for their
consciences. If they feel guilt for it, good, just as they should
feel guilty for telling a lie. Actions can be wrong, negative,
hurtful to others or selfish. Does it matter if you shoplift or
hurt someone's feelings? Both are unethical.

David Quinn: What usually happens in these situations is that the
woman has bonded herself to a smaller herd within the larger
herd, and her disruptive activities are directed towards those
outside her smaller herd. She might join an activist group, for
example, or simply team up with her boyfriend. A classic
expression of it is when young girls try to shock their elders by
being sexually provocative.

And the trouble with multiple ethics is that it creates conflicts
of interests. Many people see an advantage in this, of course, as
is it enables people to avoid the demands of one set of ethics by
constantly escaping into another set. For example, if a person
adheres to a happiness-based ethical system, as well as to a
truth-based one, then any painful demands that are made on him by
truth can easily be averted by diving into happiness-based system.
Since, in the happiness-based system, it is "wrong" to
inflict suffering upon others or upon onself, it is "right"
to ignore all those dictates of truth that one doesn't like.

Anna: No matter what is said, you always have a rejoinder
which says - women are no good.

David Quinn: I would consider any women "good" to the
degree that she embodies the things that I value - wisdom,
rationality, sanity, non-emotionalism, etc.

Anna: Let's found The Society for the Elimination of All
Emotion.

When I was little, I valued being strong and brave. When the
other little kids were crying, I marched up to the lady with the
needle and pulled up my shirt sleeve. Everyone thought it was
funny. I was afraid of the shot, but I knew we were all going to
get it anyway. I still believe in bucking up under adversity and
trying not to whine. When I was in labor with my last child, (at
home) I stopped talking during the contractions, but in between I
made jokes and ensured everyone had a good time. Isn't that just
like a woman? In my previous labor, the doctor yelled at me and
said, "Let's get this baby out!" even though the labor
took only 3 hours. Now I value courage to pursue truth.

The only way in which I agree with you is that I think women are
less able to keep their emotions in perspective and step back
from it under stress. Yet, I had, from observing men in my life,
come to the theory that men are actually less logical than women
in certain emotional situations. I decided that the reason was
probably because they are less comfortable in the world of
emotion, that when they are a bit overwhelmed emotionally, they
cannot keep their logic in gear. I am sorry David, but I have
observed this over and over. Men who are upset saying off the
wall things that are utterly illogical and emotional, and also
saying things they do not mean purely to score a point, which I
call fighting dirty. However, I recently modified that position
as I noticed that, for example, one of my daughters is
unfailingly logical no matter how upset (like me) and the other
loses her reason.

David Quinn: I have observed this also. It is easily explained by
the fact that men are used to suppressing their emotions while
reasoning in an attempt to be objective and dispassionate in
their thinking. When they enter into highly emotional situations,
however, their ability to continue suppressing their emotions
becomes strained and can often break, which causes their emotions
to come flooding into their consciousness. This, in turn, can
destabilize their thinking.

Men are not used to mixing reason and emotion together like this
and hence their comments under emotional stress can seem
extremely strange. Women, on the other hand, are always infusing
their reasoning with their emotions, even during their calmer
periods, and so there is not such a great change in their
thinking when they do become highly emotional.

Anna: And this is obviously an advantage! Imagine
that - keeping oneself all of a piece as a human being, with both
heart and head engaged!

David Quinn: The drawback is that women find it very difficult to
reason objectively - both in the abstract realm and in their
personal life.

David
Quinn: Any woman who does try to
become real human being will automatically be perceived by most
other women (and men) as being unwomanly.

Anna: This I doubt. I am considered a bit strange by people
who first meet me, although this really only happens with
Americans. Most foreigners take to me instantly. However, it is
not that they consider me unwomanly. My problem is that I am
highly introverted, and sometimes forget to pay attention to the
minutae of people's reactions. Like, if lost in thought, I may
pass you in the hall and not say hello, because I barely
registered your passing, except so as not to bump heads. Men like
the way I am. In all my serious relationships, the men have
admired my intelligence. They talk to me seriously, as I do to
them. I have similar conversations with women, but I will concede
- not nearly as often as with men. Yes, there is a difference

David Quinn: Men are able to tolerate a woman who is intelligent as
long as they can perceive that she has a soft feminine core
inside her. If they can be reassured that she isn't actually
serious about her thought or her convictions, and therefore won't
pose a threat to their own male egotistical security, then they
are fine with it.

Anna: There is a common lament here that women don't think
the way men do or value the things men do. Even dismissing the
lack of physical strength or adventurous drive, the crux of it
really is that if women are in such a different attitudinal world
without some overlap, then men would only have true companionship
with other men.

David Quinn: I think that is true. Women and men can certainly
relate to each other on an emotional level - indeed, many a
marriage is built on shared feelings of vulnerability - but what
about the deeper, non-emotional realms that male thinkers
inhabit? If a woman is unfamiliar with these realms herself, and
99.99% of women are, then what hope does she have to being a
companion to him?

Anna: Well, you exaggerate the numbers, and not all men
inhabit it either. But I do have a greater appreciation now for
how difficult it is for a really exceptional thinker to find a
woman. Heck, it is hard enough for those who are not exceptional.
I can just see the personal ad..."Truly exceptional thinker
and unflinching seeker of truth, looking for same - that one in
ten thousand woman and you know who you are. The unworthy need
not respond."

David Quinn: It goes a lot deeper than that. The really exceptional
thinker is more concerned with the ethics of being involved in an
erotic relationship with a woman in the first place, rather than
with trying to find such a relationship for himself. I personally
think it is immoral for a man to imprison another person in a
relationship simply for the sake of his own erotic pleasure. It
is misogynistic and only serves to keep women down.

The odd woman who is familiar with these realms can only be
familiar with them at the expense of her womanliness, as it is
part and parcel of being a woman in our society that they are
entirely dumb when it comes to higher thought.

Anna: Oh, piffle. Poppycock. Balderdash. Such people are
lonely only because it is not often they find kindred spirits. I
think being an electrical engineer would be a little tough for a
woman, but not being a philosopher. Any woman who is really
philosophically minded will never give a damn what men think of
her as a woman, because she does not want a dumb man. Smart men
want smart women. Of course, such people must break with their
religions, which is often pretty tough.

David Quinn: Becoming involved in higher thought means clashing with
the world, as the world doesn't value higher thought. Being a
woman, on the other hand, means harmonizing with the world and
playing the role of the nurturer. Never the twain shall meet
......

Anna: A favorite quote of mine is "Truth is a pathless
land." It takes courage to step off the path (and the
priesthood will try to frighten you away from it). Courage is the
question. A woman can do it.

Men May Have
Reason To Be Grumpy

Exact Cause Of Syndrome
Still Unknown

Updated: 11:17 a.m. EST November
6, 2002

Local6.com

CLEVELAND -- Are you a man who is
feeling irritable, depressed and bloated? Well, those are
symptoms related to a condition called "irritable male
syndrome," which may affect millions of men. But there are
available treatments that may help.

Connie Hillegass said she hit a snag in her
marriage a few years ago because something was different about
her husband, Michael.

"It's like a switch was turned off. There
was no lust -- no desire," Michael Hillegass said.

"Under the circumstances of stress and
then particular dietary changes, men exhibit these symptoms of
irritable male syndrome, much like women do with PMS,"
Gillespie said.

Men can fight back by eating right, according
to Gillespie, and in her book, "The Gladiator Diet,"
she reflects on what "he-men of old" used to eat before
battle.

"People can't get a chariot through a
drive-in, so there wasn't fast food," Gillespie said.

Fats and carbohydrates block the body's ability
to use testosterone proteins, and eating unprocessed foods can
help. Gillespie suggested a diet of approximately 300 to 500
calories about five times a day will keep testosterone and
insulin levels smooth.

After following this advice, Simmons said,
"My belly went away."

But Michael Hillegass said, "I'm more
interested in just getting out and doing things."

Connie Hillegass also noticed the changes in
her husband and she said, "It's like wow, yes, this is a
different guy. (You) know, (he has) a whole different personality."

According to Gillespie, IMS has been linked
with osteoporosis, or weakened bones, in men.

If you think you might suffer from IMS, stay
away from foods like black licorice and breath mints. Gillespie
said they contain a chemical that can dramatically reduce
testosterone levels.

Comment: This was an interesting story in
that it's good to see that someone is taking notice of male
health and the importance of male hormones in the formulatuion of
who and what a man is (we've had plenty of that with respect to
women). It's also good to know what one can do, diet wise, to
avoid a loss of testosterone in the system. What's sad, however,
is that all the concerns mentioned here are feminine oriented -
change of appearance, loss of libido and affection etc. There's
no mention of loss of rationality, purpose and principle. And
even though it's the men undergoing these significant changes in
their selves, the impact still seems to be measured predominantly
in terms of the impact on women. It seems a woman's health is hers,
but a man's health is owned by everyone.

Ideal
man has no rough edges

By Lois Rogers in
London
December 09, 2002
News.com.au

SCIENTISTS have created the perfect male face -
a man so handsome any woman would automatically pick him out of a
heaving crowd.

Perfect
face:
Researcher Tony Little has created
the 'ideal' face.

He has large expressive eyes set
in a smooth-skinned symmetrical face, a straight nose, and a
rounded hair and jawline.

Although his makers admit their perfect male looks slightly
girlish, they have found modern women want caring feminine traits
rather than more macho markings.

They say bearded men and others with features that suggest they
are unlikely to wash up or change a baby can forget about
impressing women.

Single women now want a trophy partner, a "new man"
with domestic attributes that her friends can admire at a party,
but who can be trusted not to go home with one of them.

Real men will be relieved to learn this Adonis does not exist.

He is a composite computer-generated image of 12 moderately
attractive and average-looking young men.

The researchers at the psychology department of St Andrews
University in Edinburgh, who created the ideal male, discovered
that women are most attracted to a man with features representing
the average. They believe women prefer such features because they
signal that the man is one of the mainstream majority and less
likely to carry harmful genes.

The face was created with a computer program that calculates
average distances between the features of different faces, and
average hair and jawlines.

The volunteer men were picked from the local student population,
and 34 female "raters" with an average age of 20 were
asked to give marks out of seven for masculinity and
attractiveness to various composite images of the men.

The psychologists found the women questioned had almost identical
opinions.

The clear winner was a composite of all 12 males, feminised to
soften the jawline and perfect the complexion. The researchers
say smooth skin in men conveys an absence of inherited disease or
damage -- a factor that would reduce the score of sex symbols
such as Richard Burton, whose faces had pockmarks.

Symmetry in male and female features has long been recognised as
an important attribute in sexual attraction, but the rise of
feminine appeal in a male face is a modern trait.

"Women find femininity appealing in a male face because they
said they associate it with co-operation, honesty and parental
ability," said Tony Little, the principal research
psychologist.

"Strongly masculine features are considered threatening and
less attractive, but they still want some combination involving
masculine features because they want dominance, too."

Dr Little cites Jude Law and Brad Pitt as embodiments of the
ideal man. Leonardo DiCaprio's looks would be too girlish to
attract the mainstream, and a super-masculine Arnold
Schwarzenegger type would be considered too aggressive and
promiscuous to make a reliable partner.

Marcelle D'Argy Smith, a former editor of Cosmopolitan magazine,
said soccer stars such as David Beckham and Michael Owen, and
film stars such as George Clooney, typified today's desirable
male. But she pointed out: "Some men who look absolutely
gorgeous are completely doomed from the moment they open their
mouths. Men can be thrilled to bits by a lap dancer with an IQ of
43 and even marry them. A woman could never do that."

Anthropologist Desmond Morris said the shift reflected women's
increasing dominance. "Smooth-skinned and feminised looks
are characteristics of youth," he said.

"It's possible these looks stimulate not only sexual but
also maternal feelings. If women want to be more dominant, they
will look for a little-boy face."

However, Dr Little points out that research shows women
aggressively use a "mixed mating strategy", which
varies with their menstrual cycle.

"Work on the timing of affairs has shown that flings or
affairs tend to coincide with a woman's peak fertility ... which
suggests women may be making the best of both worlds," he
said.

"They take a more feminine male partner for long-term
investment, while occasionally having affairs or short-term
relationships with masculine males to provide good immunity genes
for some of their children."

So, for example, most people would
certainly be attracted to the idea of being free of suffering,
but they're not really seeing this result in its true light, so
when you tell them that to be without suffering means to be
without attachment, all of a sudden they're not so sure they want
this so-called benefit after all. It's too big a trade-off
for them and they'll probably not see the duality in their
consciousness clearly enough to believe that trade-off is even
necessary. It can be difficult to convince a person that
happiness is not the means by which one divests oneself of
suffering.Dan
Rowden

Imagine you are having a dream at night and you
realize, during the course of this dream, that you are indeed
dreaming and that everything you are experiencing is just a
simulation or an illusion. Even your own body within
the dream is part of the illusion. Do you
think that you would continue to treat the dreamworld in the same
way as before? Would you become frightened if someone
tried to harm you, for example? Or relieved if he went
away? To the degree that you see that it is all an
illusion you would experience neither of these emotions.

This is similar to what happens to a person
when he becomes spiritually awake. He realizes with
the utmost clarity that everything he experiences in the physical
world is an illusion. And so he enters the "living
death" that I have spoken about. He can no longer
take anything in the world seriously enough to develop a life out
of it. And yet the quality of his existence is
infinitely high. David
Quinn

It's important that one approaches an
understanding of Reality in the right way and with the proper
motivation. If that doesn't exist then at the first sign of
"trouble" one will back away from the path. And
what is that proper motivation? An absolute desire for what
is true. If one approaches the path to wisdom with anything
other than a need to overcome suffering that is directly related
to one's ignorance regarding Reality, then it is doubtful that
the dedication and resolve that is necessary for the path will
exist. This is utterly critical and is precisely what
protects one from lapsing into satisfying and gratifying quasi-religious
beliefs. Dan Rowden

Well, we can't experience or talk
about the Totality directly (since anything directly experienced
by mind must exist relative to what it is not and there can be
nothing other than the Totality), but we can understand why this
is so; in other words we can understand the principle of the
Totality. Part of the falsity we engage in with respect to
the Totality (or Reality) is that of a deluded grasping for it as
if it were a thing that could be captured within mind. When
we stop this grasping we begin to dwell within Reality in the
only way possible. One can say, in a somewhat cryptic vein
I suppose, that we find Reality by ceasing to look for it.
However, that can only happen at the end of a complete
appreciation for the nature of existence and the principle of the
Totality. In short, you haven't found Reality just by
ceasing to examine the matter. You have to know precisely why
it is that you must stop the "grasping". Dan Rowden

Seven
Questions Women Most Frequently Ask About Men

(...and
the answers they don't want to hear)

Questions
taken from the Courier Mail
Nov 16

1.
Why do men continually offer solutions and give advice?

A:Being more rational than women, men
are naturally oriented to problem solving. This is what reason
dictates. If a problem is posed, the natural response of the
reasoning mind is to find and propose a solution. The female
mind, being more emotional, has less interest and inclination to
resolve problems; it is far more inclined to bathe in the waters
of the emotion involved. Also, men offer advice to women because
that's what women want and respond to. This dynamic indicates to
the woman that she is valued (or at least, she thinks it is) and
also allows the woman to take action without the burden of
personal responsibility - they can simply act on the basis of
advice given. In this sense, men, thought the avenue of advice
giving, present women with one of the greatest gifts that a woman
could want - a means by which to absolve themselves from
responsibility for their actions.

The other, and perhaps less
complicated reason for this behaviour in men is that men seek to
dominate the world through mental action; women submit to the
world and flow within its turbulence because they have no
corresponding mental activity. Without the advice and problem
solving of the males around them, most women would collapse into
a pathetic heap. So, instead of asking why men continually offer
solutions and give advice, women should ask themselves why they
continually need it.

2.
Why do men keep flicking through the channels with the remote
control?

A:I can't say that I've noticed this to be an exclusively
male behaviour, but the reason for it seems obvious: the vast
majority of what's on television is so brainless, emotional and
directed at women that men are forced to move about the channels
just to escape it. It is a type of psychological defense
mechanism. Men do not "flick" when watching the news or
their favourite sports event, for example. And any man who lives
with a woman knows that it is predominantly her abode. If there
is some evidence within the household that he lives there, he's
pretty lucky. Given this, it could be that exercising
territoriality over the television remote control is one of the
few ways he has of expressing his existence in the environment.

3.
Why don't men stop and ask for directions?

A:Independence of spirit
and sense of personal responsibility; the deep desire to solve
problems for themselves and the satisfaction that goes with
having done so.

4.
Why do men insist on leaving the toilet seat up?

A: Why do women insist of being concerned
with such trivia? Why do women insist on leaving the toilet seat
down? Why do women believe the world should be set up for their
benefit? If men have to lift the seat up every time, why can't
women put it down? If this is the sort of thing that women
actually do most frequently ask about men, it is proof positive
that women are hopelessly self-obsessed and mentally vacuous.

5.
Why do men make such a fuss about going shopping?

A:Like everything they
do in association with women, their souls are at stake! I'm not
entirely sure what "fuss" means in this question, but I
suspect it's another example of men wanting to get the job done
and not waste hours of one's life browsing over things that are
of no interest to him and which will never be bought anyway. Men
tend to hate window shopping. Sure, they can browse for ages
looking for the best hammer in the hardware store, but their
approach is directed and specific. Women browse merely to indulge
themselves. If a man needs a litre of milk, he can walk into a
supermarket and just get the milk; the average woman quite likely
won't be seen or heard from for the next hour or more. No wonder
men make a "fuss". I know of few men who don't very
soon repent of their decision to go shopping with a woman.

6.
Why do men have such disgusting personal habits?

A:Women are far more
obsessed with how they appear than are men, therefore women
attend to issues of personal habits - at least in public
circumstances - far more than men. But it all depends on one's
perspective of what constitutes a disgusting personal habit. I
can think of few personal habits more disgusting than that of
spending an entire hour of one's life piling chemicals onto one's
face in order to appear more "attractive", or that of
filling the air with ridiculous odours and sprays. Women are also
more attuned to the immediate sensory environment than men, so
women seek to control that environment more. This is why they
have different standards for domestic cleanliness. Women are also
far more concerned than men about what other people think of
them, so they are always on the look-out for any misplaced
element of their selves or their immediate environment. Men are
"slobs" because they don't care so much what people
think, because they are not as acutely attuned to their sensory
environment as women, and also because they inhabit a far more
abstract, intellectual world. And here is where the whole notion
of disgusting personal habits takes on a new meaning. Men have
tidier and more structured minds than women. Women's personal
mental habits are about as disgusting as human behaviour gets.
But no-one even talks about this area of human activity because
it's not what females value. As usual, notions like "disgusting
personal habits" is viewed almost entirely through the
filters of feminine values. Maybe that's the most disgusting
habit of all!

7.
Why do men love gross jokes?

A: Men are more anti-social than women (i.e.
they have a far greater capacity for the expression of
individuality). Men like to push boundaries, defy conventional
social moral mores. Men like to express their identity by a show
of dominance (in the form of defiance) of the dictates of the
herd. Women dislike gross jokes because they are more "civilized".
Unfortunately, being more civilized means being more oppressed by
one's need for relation to others; it means being more passive,
submissive and dependent. And, of course, as with the last
question, what constitutes a "gross" joke is always
something determined by a woman.

David Quinn: It [the question of where duality came
from] is Nature's great mystery, if you will, except that it is
an inherently un-solvable mystery. In other words, it is not the
kind of mystery in which there is a solution and we are
just too limited to grasp it. Rather, it is a mystery in which
there is no solution at all.

Chuck Salvo: So there is an unsolvable mystery at
the heart of it all! Can you see why some would think that all is
uncertain?

David Quinn: Well, as I say, because there is no
solution at all, the question is unaskable, and therefore the
great mystery behind it is an illusion. Or to put it another way,
it is the delusional mind-set on the part of the inquirer which
falsely creates Nature's great mystery.

It is a bit like asking the question, "Where did Everything
come from?" Delusional thinking insists that something must
have created Everything. Yet, as I outlined in my last post,
whatever can be postulated as the creator of Everything - God,
for example - will itself be a part of Everything. So here is a
mystery with no solution.

However, the mystery is a false one and has no ultimate basis to
it. The question, "Where did Everything come from?" is
unaskable because the very definition of Everything precludes an
answer. The only way an answer could be found is by changing the
definition of Everything into something else. But all that would
do is destroy the original question.

Once it is recognized and accepted that Everything has no
beginning, then the mystery of where it came from disappears. It
is the same with, "Where did duality come from?" The
One (Emptiness or Ultimate Reality) and the two (duality) are two
sides of the one coin.

Chuck Salvo: Since they are two sides of the same
coin, what is the truth value of understanding the phenomenal (ie
duality)? Ought we not to get some understanding that way, or is
all understanding solely from the noumenal?

David Quinn: One cannot truly understand the Two
without first understanding the One. In other words, the
attainment of enlightenment is a necessary prerequisite for the
attainment of genuine knowledge in any sphere of life.

Scientists have done a good job in creating some sophisticated
theories which seem to account, to some degree at least, for what
we observe in the world. Yet they themselves have no
understanding of why these theories should work, why the world
the way it is, where it came from, what is or ought to be the
purpose of life, and what is ultimately true. They are like men
who refuse to open their eyes, and instead spend their lives
creating theories about what they can merely touch and hear.

Chuck Salvo: If the one and the two are a single
coin, isn't it just as legimitate to understand the two as it is
to understand the one?

David
Quinn: Only after
one has understood the One. In understanding the One, a person is
clearly able to distinguish between what is ultimately real and
what isn't. He can then apply this clarity to anything in the
phenomenal world.

All things being equal, an enlightened scientist would be
immeasurably better at doing science than an unenlightened one,
just by virtue of the fact that his mind wouldn't be side-tracked
by what is trivial and unimportant.

Chuck Salvo: Doesn't the scientist come to this
conclusion: There is no god, no soul, no freedom of the will,
nature is indifferent to our wishes, and there is an
insoluability at the heart of it all?

David Quinn: This is an interesting point. I always
find it amusing to observe the many contradictions found in
today's scientists. An evolutionary biologist, for example,
spends his days studying the causal processes of life on the
assumption that there is no "self" in any of them. But
then, lo and behold!, he goes home each night to his wife and
kids and proceeds to live his life on the assumption that there
really is a "self" inside himself after all!
At the very least, one would have to conclude that such a person
leads a double life. It would be rather like a passionate anti-pornography
campaigner going home each night and masturbating in front of
pornographic videos.

But again, because scientists rarely involve themselves
in the knowledge-process, they cannot help making fools of
themselves in this way. And their lack of involvement means that
they are very naive and confused when it comes to the deeper
realm of philosophy.

Accordingly, the scientist doesn't know with 100%
certainty that there is no god, no soul, etc. He merely assumes
that these things don't exist. It's just a guess on his part, one
that best facillitates the scientific process at this particular
point in its history.

The difference between a scientist who says there is no god and
an enlightened person who says there is no god, is like the
difference between a African tribesman who suspects that a motor
car is not really powered by a deity and an expert mechanic who
knows his engines thoroughly.

Chuck Salvo: Cannot the metaphysician also be a
scientist? Actually, mustn't the metaphysician also be a
scientist? Because otherwise the metaphysician becomes as
superstitious as the common herd.

David Quinn: I reckon that nobody should be allowed
to do science until they become enlightened. This may slow down
the rate of scientific progress, but I believe that it would
become better directed, more efficient, and more responsible as a
result. At the moment, scientists are just pandering to the
basest whims of society and deluging it with computer games,
televisions, bombs, and other similarly dubious gadgetry.

The metaphysician
cannot be superstitious if he has eliminated all of his delusions.
Such a person knows the true place of science and can judge the
worth of empirical knowledge in the correct light. He doesn't
ignore what science has to say, but neither does he place upon it
an importance which isn't there.

A:Men know as much as
they need to know. Men come together in friendship as a
consequence of shared values or interests; women as a consequence
of a need for relation itself. Men have no need of the details of
a friend's life beyond the context of those shared values or
interests. For a woman, knowing as much detail as possible about
a friend's life is part of building an egotistically beneficial
relationship. It also provides women with the ability to gossip,
exploit, manipulate and express power. For women, the nitty
gritty, mundane details of the everyday (i.e. the immediate) is
predominantly what their lives are made of, so it is unsurprising
that they would value this and what to have knowledge of it with
respect to their friends. Men, on the other hand, meet each other
on a far more abstract and conceptual plane and those nitty
gritty details of their more general lives are simply irrelevant
to this.

2.
Why do men avoid commitment?

A. Clearly, men do not avoid
commitment. Men express commitment everyday across a whole
spectrum of life matters. What women are really saying when they
ask this question is: "Why do men avoid commitment to us?"
Also, they are saying that commitment to them is really the only
kind of commitment that matters. Men make a commitment to
careers, politics, sports, principles and so forth all the time.
It is surely one of the most perfect expressions of female vanity
that a seeming unwillingness to commit to them on the part of
men, signifies a general avoidance of commitment. That in itself
is good reason for men to be wary of commitment to a female. Who
wants to commit themselves to a creature who apparently believes
herself to be God's gift to the universe, something inherently
valuable and utterly magnetic? Men resist commitment to women -
to the degree that they even really do - because it represents
the potential loss of their freedom; of their individuality which
they value highly and which women don't even comprehend. In
short, men know the difference between commitment and - capitulation!

3.
Why do men feel the need to be right about everything?

A. Well, I'm more interested in why women
don't! Could it have something to do with conscience and
responsibility? Certainly a man's need to be right about things
because he has a conscience about being wrong, is
tainted by an egotistical need to dominate, but this is surely
preferable to the egotistical need to be passive with respect to
the meaningfulness of what one is expressing. Women don't like to
be held to account, therefore they have no concern for being
right about anything, for to claim rectitude is to place oneself
squarely in a position of responsibility, possibly even blame. We
perceive men as being arrogant in this respect and women as being
reasonable and open-minded. The truth is far other than this,
however. The need to feel that one is right about things is in
fact an entirely noble feeling, so long as it is accompanied by a
conscience and a willingness to concede error when it's pointed
out. Women avoid the whole dynamic entirely. They blissfully spew
out opinions on everything and everyone, yet never feel the touch
of the burden of conscience or responsibility, because, well,
they never feel that they are necessarily right in their opinions.
This is part of the reason that hardly any woman in history has
achieved anything of worth in areas like philosophy and science.
There must come, at some point, a willingness to say that one is
right about something; a willingness to stand up and be counted
and to be held to account. Only a woman would place a negative
connotation on wanting to be right.

4.
Why are grown men so interested in boys' toy's?

A.Men don't entirely
lose the curious, adventurous, effervescent life of boyhood.
Women think of this as a form of immaturity, but that is because
women are basically dead in spirit and have been almost the
entirety of their lives. So-called "boys' toys" often
present two things that the male mind relates to: physical and
mental challenges and the ability to imagine, to go places in the
mind, to dream and idealise. Since women largely lack a mental
life, they have no means by which to relate to this dimension of
maleness. It is sometimes difficult to come to terms with the
depth of unconsciousness women have with respect to the world
they inhabit. If it weren't this "boyishness" in men,
this sense of dreaming, adventure and creativity, the
civilisation which women take for granted would probably never
have eventuated.

5.
Why can men only seem to do one thing at a time?

A. The male mind is designed for
penetration and focus. This enables men to achieve great things
within specific spheres of life. It is precisely why almost all
the great thinkers, scientists, artists etc of history have been
men. The multi-tasking of the female mind most certainly has its
value, but it is not suited to the realm of serious philosophic
thought.

6.
Why are men so addicted to sport?

A.Men value
sport, either on the basis of the personal challenge it
represents to them, or because they can relate in a vicarious
fashion to the structure, logic and challenge that sporting
activity represents. Personal challenge seems to be something of
an anathema to a great many women; it seems not to be a natural
part of the feminine psyche. The elements of sport speak to the
nature of the male psyche, which is why most sports have been
created by men. It means challenge, struggle, overcoming. These
things are much less apparent as values in the female psyche,
which is why we see in tennis, for instance, that when a woman is
losing a match she usually falls in a complete heap and the score-line
looks something like 6-4 6-1 6-0. Male players who may possibly
be quite out of their depth will nevertheless rise to the
occasion and make a battle of it, perhaps even, through sheer
brute determination and focus, prevail over a "better"
opponent. One again, if it wasn't for this dimension of the male
psyche, civilisation as we know it, and as women enjoy it,
wouldn't exist.

7.
What do men really talk about in the rest room?

A. That's simple enough - nothing. For men
toilets are for pissing and shitting, not for undertaking various
forms of social discourse. Some men may pass a few words between
them when standing at a urinal, especially if it's a urinal in a
pub and they've been there some time, but they do not venture
into rest rooms in groups and sit on the wash basin benches and
gossip and natter. Talk about your disgusting personal habits!
Women really can't do anything on their own. Being of a more
solitary nature, men don't feel the need to be constantly
engaging other men just for the sake of it. Men respect each
other's individual space. Women constantly network. Relation is
their raison d'Ítre.

Disclaimer:
editorial opinions expressed in this publication are
those of its authors and do not, necessarily, reflect the
views of subscribers to Genius-L or Genius Forum. Dialogues adapted from Genius-L and Genius
Forum have been edited for the purpose of brevity and clarity.
Certain spelling mistakes and typographical errors have been corrected
to preserve meaning.